Learning to See: Using Mixed OR Methods to Model Radiology Staff Workload and Support Decision Making in CT.
Decision support
Discrete event simulation
Radiology
Soft systems methodology
Workload
Journal
SN computer science
ISSN: 2661-8907
Titre abrégé: SN Comput Sci
Pays: Singapore
ID NLM: 101772308
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
08
08
2021
accepted:
11
06
2022
entrez:
12
7
2022
pubmed:
13
7
2022
medline:
13
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Demand for Computer Tomography (CT) is growing year on year and the population of Ireland is increasingly aging and ailing. Anecdotally, radiology staff reported increasing levels of workload associated with the patient profile. In this paper, we propose a framework combining discrete event simulation (DES) modeling and soft systems methodologies (SSM) for use in healthcare which captures the staff experience and metrics to evidence workload. The framework was applied in a single-scanner CT department, which completes circa 6000 examinations per year. The scanner case load consists of unscheduled work [inpatient (IP) and emergency department (ED)] and scheduled work [outpatient (OP) and general practitioner (GP)]. The three stage framework is supported by qualitative and quantitative methods and uses DES as a decision support tool. Firstly, workflow mapping and system dynamics are used to conceptualize the problem situation and instigate a preliminary data analysis. Secondly, SSM tools are used to identify components for a DES model and service improvement scenarios. Lastly, the DES model results are used to inform decision-making and identify a satisficing solution. Data from the DES model provided evidence of the differing workload (captured in staff time) for the IP and OP cohorts. For non-contrast examinations, inpatient workload is 2.5 times greater than outpatient. Average IP process delays of 11.9 min were demonstrated compared to less than 1 min for OP. The findings recommend that OP and IP diagnostic imaging be provided separately, for efficiency, workload management and infection control reasons.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35818394
doi: 10.1007/s42979-022-01244-4
pii: 1244
pmc: PMC9255484
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
361Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interestThe authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Références
Int J Med Inform. 2007 Nov-Dec;76(11-12):801-11
pubmed: 17059892
Radiology. 2020 Jun;295(3):E8
pubmed: 32228364
BMJ. 2004 Jan 17;328(7432):162-4
pubmed: 14726351
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Nov;81(11):3131-40
pubmed: 22503034
Insights Imaging. 2011 Aug;2(4):425-430
pubmed: 22347964
Radiol Technol. 2006 Nov-Dec;78(2):113-22
pubmed: 17119177
Australas Radiol. 2006 Feb;50(1):12-20
pubmed: 16499721
Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 Jan-Feb;23(1):168-76
pubmed: 15002639
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2018 Oct;62(5):605-618
pubmed: 30070435
Arch Intern Med. 2010 Apr 26;170(8):683-90
pubmed: 20421552
Br J Radiol. 2017 Dec;90(1080):20170574
pubmed: 29039691
Qual Health Res. 2001 Jul;11(4):436-49
pubmed: 11521603
Radiography (Lond). 2020 Aug;26(3):264-268
pubmed: 32340912
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Jan;25(1):38-45
pubmed: 26115667
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010 Mar;36(3):126-32
pubmed: 20235414
Radiography (Lond). 2018 Oct;24 Suppl 1:S28-S32
pubmed: 30166005
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2013 Oct;57(5):558-66
pubmed: 24119269
Adv Simul (Lond). 2018 Jul 27;3:15
pubmed: 30065851
BMJ Open. 2016 Jun 06;6(6):e010363
pubmed: 27266768
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Aug;26(8):641-652
pubmed: 28062603
J Digit Imaging. 2014 Feb;27(1):33-40
pubmed: 23917864
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E106-E112
pubmed: 32175814
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003 Oct;8 Suppl 2:26-34
pubmed: 14596745
Int J Med Inform. 2005 Oct;74(10):827-37
pubmed: 16043391
J Public Health Med. 2003 Dec;25(4):325-35
pubmed: 14747592
Qual Manag Health Care. 2017 Oct/Dec;26(4):184-189
pubmed: 28991813
Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Aug;19(4):284-9
pubmed: 20463369